I guess the question is kind of vague, but let’s use the Iraq war as an example. When the war started, were Air Force Generals the only ones picking targets and deciding what to hit them with, or do Colonels or Majors get involved as well?
Same with the Army, I assume the Generals say “OK, let’s roll toward Baghdad,” but as far as deciding what units to use, when, and how, is that still the work of Generals?
Are Admirals the only deciders as to where certain boats are going to be, and what they are supposed to be doing, or do Captains get involved?
Bonus question: How are decisions made across branches of the service? For example, who decides if they should send a SEAL squad or some Airborne Rangers to do a certain job?
As a bump, I’ll go ahead and warn you that you might have problems with some Navy folks here over the above comment. The Navy doesn’t use boats, but ships.
However, I can’t begin to accurately answer your question, so I’ll refrain from speculating.
In theory, the chain of command reachs all the way down. The President, by his authority as Commander-in-Chief, can give a legal order to any member of the armed forces and there have been occasions when Presidents have used this power to direct military operations all the way down to the tactical level. Generals and Admirals can do the same to the units under their command. So realistically the answer is strategic decisions get made at whatever level the higher command decides to delegate it down to.
Incorrect. Most Navy vessels are ships, but the word “boat” is reserved for one that travels underwater, or else has no indoor space.
As for strategic decisions, targeting isn’t one of them. As a lieutenant in the Air Force, I was briefly in charge of a targeting team that designated air strike targets based on overhead imagery. A captain and a major worked to approve and disapprove targets from my team and several others. But that’s not strategy – that’s operations. Targets come up the chain to the level where decisions get made, and except for a few high-value targets, generals do not (ahem, should not) be involved in something as mundane as targeting.
Strategic decisions are made by generals, colonels, and lieutenant colonels and include things like “I can spare X aircraft of various types to handle the targets that come up on a daily basis, and will hold a reserve of Y aircraft for training and emergency response.” This may also take the form of “The list of designated targets is growing daily, but I can only hit twenty a day with my current allocation. I need to come up with a plan to hit thirty a day.”
The colonel will almost certainly get input from majors and captains on that decision, and the details of the plan that gets implemented may very well be a bright idea that a junior officer has had. That junior officer may also be in charge of four aircraft that are assigned to air-strike duty, and he will be directing how to accomplish that tactical mission.
In the Army, it works similarly. Petraeus would say “take Basra back, because we need the port there under our control.” He might assign a division to take it. The division commander would then ask a colonel how much he needed to take it, give him most of what he asked for, and then turn him loose to do it. His majors would, in turn, command sections of the force taking sections of the city. The captains and lieutenants would be controlling even smaller groups, directing tactical operations like “Major Smith said to take the docks – we’ll move our four tanks along the coast with artillery support from Capt Jones.”
SOCOM probably has a liason officer(s) with the various theatre commands. I would assume that a theatre Operations Officer would request help from SOCOM.
The short answer is that flag rank officers are the ones doing strategic level decisions.
This is basically due to the fact that each level of rank roughly corresponds to a certain size formation that is considered an appropriate command, and only Generals/Admirals command forces big enough to warrant strategic level decisions vs. operational or tactical decisions.
That’s not to say that the Generals’ staffs aren’t made of lower ranking officers who make many decisions, but the guy responsible is wearing at least one star, probably 2-4.
In some ways, the answer to this question is unknowable. Mainly because this type of “tasker” is sent down to the O-3, O-4 or 0-5 level for staffing and then sent up the chain of command. There they get chopped (or not) killed (or not) or totally redone (or not). So an O-3 could have developed the concept and it could have moved up the chain without any change.
Perhaps a better question would be at what level are strategic decisions approved. But even this is fuzzy. The portion of the strategic plan that deals with logistic, could be approved at the O-6 level. But if it’s a bigger strategic question, the answer is at the Cocom level, which is a four star.
It really depends on many factors, such as the nature of the conflict. In an insurgency or colonial warfare ,officers such as garrison commanders, at levels of Cols or Brigadiers will be making decisions which have a strategic impact. For example which ones of the militias to go after who to be buddy buddy with. A report in the Times Magazine reported the experiences of a Major in Iraq who would decide which militant group he would support and who he would go after.
On the other hand in a conventional large state vs state conflict, even field army commanders may have a mostly tactical viewpoint. So in the ETO only Eisenhower, Monty, Bradley and some other officers really only had to worry about the strategic direction and related affairs, everyone else could ignore them, unless they directly affected them. So Hodges, Patton, Dempsey, Simpson etc, were not involved directly in strategic decision making, though they undoubtedly gave their input, well we all know Patton did. Indeed this is one of the reasons why Patton never advanced beyond army commander, and why first Bradley and then Devers were promoted over his head to Army Group command, since the brass felt that he was bereft of strategic thought.
In addition staff officers (who are obviously of a lower rank) will be highly involved in strategic decisions, and their implementation. So a Chief of Staff of say an Army Group will have a lot more influence.
Depends on how you want to define strategy. As Little Nemo said, the chain of command reaches all the way down. I was in air defense artillery (stinger missile), and we had a section of 3 or 4 2-man teams assigned to protect a company sized element. The section sargent, with input from the teamchiefs, made the decision of where to strategically place teams to protect that element. The teamchief then decided how to get in position, and when to move out. I was the section sargent’s driver when I was still an E2, and I was helping him with strategic positioning of teams within weeks. Like when the moron tried to place teams in dense forest or valleys.